No More Learning

210) to have possibly been identical with The Orphans' Tragedy) into a play printed
in 1601 under the title of Two Lamentable Tragedies, as by an unknown, and possibly
fictitious, Robert Yarington (rptd in Old Plays, ed. Bullen, A. H. , vol. iv, 1882).
Dekker and Jonson wrote Page of Plymouth (1599), as to the subject of which cf.
* Dramaticus' in Shakespeare Society Papers, vol. 11 (S. S. Publ. 1845); and Samuel
Rowley The Bristow Tragedy (1602), the identification of which with the comedy The
Faire Maide of Bristow is more than doubtful.
3 See below, chap. vill.
* Cf. Smith, P. L. , Life of Sir Henry Wottun (1907), vol. I, p. 22.


## p. 97 (#115) #############################################

A A Woman Kilde with Kindnesse
97
the reign of Richard Il. The Miseries of Inforet Mariage, by
George Wilkins, printed in 1607, in a measure varies the theme ;
but the pathos of the first two acts loses itself in a picture of
reckless despair which is neither probable nor pleasing, and, though
the sentimental element reappears, it is effectually submerged by
the most imbecile of 'happy endings? ' The graceless son plays
his part in The London Prodigall, noticed above among the plays
attributed to Shakespeares, where the figure of the faithful wife
also recurs in the person of Luce, one of the many reproductions
in the English drama of the Patient Grissel type, which Chettle,
Dekker and Haughton brought on the stage by their treatment of
the famous romantic theme. It seems unnecessary to pursue
further in this place the development of English domestic drama,
though, among the abnormally conceived and artificially con-
structed plays of the early Stewart period, there are not a few in
which the directness distinctive of the entire species asserts itself
either in the main action of the play or in particular scenes, even
when overspread by some rank exotic intrigue or driven into the
corner by the intrusion of some supernatural fancy.
A Woman Kilde with Kindnesse, which deservedly holds a
foremost rank among the classics of domestic drama, derived its
title, like several other of its author's plays, from a proverb or
proverbial phrase. The expression 'to kill a wife with kindness'
occurs in The Taming of the Shrews, which must have been pro-
duced on the stage some six or seven years before the performance,
by Worcester's men, early in 1603 (N. S. ), of Heywood's play? . It
was first printed, without having been entered in the register,
· Edited by Quin, A. H. (? ), Philadelphia, 1902. See Brereton, J. Le Gay, in The
Modern Language Review, vol. III, p. 74 (cf. ).
? Rptd in vol. IX of Hazlitt's Dodsley (1874).
3 See vol. v, chap. x.
* Cf. ante, chap. II. As to the “Griseldis-Motiv'in English drama, cf. Gothein, M. ,
"Die Frau im engl. Drama vor Shakespeare,' in Shakespeare Jahrbuch, vol. XL (1904),
PP. 40 ir.
5 Cf. Schelling, u. s. pp. 349 ff.
6 Act iv, 8o. 1, 192.
? See the entry in Henslowe's diary ap. Greg, vol. 11, p. 234. Later uses of the phrase
'to kill with kindness' are noted in the present writer's edition of Heywood's play in
the Temple Dramatists Series (1897). Other proverbial titles of plays by Heywood
are, besides If you know not me, etc. , those of the non-extant The Blind eats many a
Fly; Christmas comes but once a year; Joan and my Lady. The following are some of
the proverbs or proverbial phrases to be found in the dialogue of his extant dramas:
in A Woman Kilde, etc. "comparisons are odious'; in The Royall King, etc. 'thou canst
have no more of the cat but his skin'; in The Fair Maid Of The West Base is the
man that paies'; in The Golden Age . cast your old cloak about ye'; in The Wise-
woman Of Hogsdon 'a cat may look at a king'; in The English Traveller ‘January
and May. '
E. L. VI. CH. IV.
7
>
>
2
9


## p. 98 (#116) #############################################

98
Thomas Heywood
in 1607; the third edition of the play, 'as it hath been oftentimes
acted by the Queen's' men, appeared in 1617. This popularity
was due to no adventitious attractions; and the author was
perfectly conscious of the simplicity of the means by which the
desired dramatic effect had been achieved; in the words of his
prologue it was
a barren subject, a bare scene
which he presented—nothing more than a sad experience of
everyday life, redeemed from the dreariness of its melancholy
only, so far as the erring wife is concerned, by the pity of it, and
by the nobility of soul which, in the very depth of his grief, the
wronged husband proves capable of revealing. In the strength of
its sentiment and the directness of its appeal to a more than
fleeting sympathy lie the main causes of the effect which this
play produces ; but the skill with which its action is constructed
and the chief situations are devised should not be overlooked.
While the seducer falters long on the threshold of his crime, but,
when he has once crossed it, drags on his victim relentlessly from
transgression to transgression, she is caught in the toils half un-
awares, and, with an 'O Master Wendoll 01,' is lost-to awake to
Sbitter remorse even before the hour of discovery has come. The
nocturnal return of the betrayed husband to his closed door is
(presented with admirable theatrical effect—it might, as has been
said, almost be described as a 'prose' reproduction of some of
the terrors of Macbeth. The magnanimity of the husband--pre-
figured by that of Master Shore in the chronicle play-might,
conceivably, have failed to come home to an Elizabethan audience,
but for the picture of the broken-hearted and penitent woman in
the last act, which wins over all hearts to an acknowledgment of
her husband's kindness, and of the Power which overrules both
human sorrow and human sin. The scene of the play is laid in
the midst of English country life, characteristic features of which
-fresh air and hawking in the morning, and a game at cards o
nights are reproduced without an effort, but with a realistic
effect which materially helps to bring home the story of the
tragedy enacted thus amidst familiar surroundings.
1 Compare with this electrical touch another, almost equal to it-Mistress Frank-
ford to her lute: "We both are out of tune, out of tune' (act iv, sc. 3).
? Heywood must be pardoned the allusive ingenuity of the card playing scene,
which probably pleased the taste of his patrons. Cf. the repeated allusions to the
game of Maw in Dekker's Match mee in London, which Fleay thought identifiable with
The Set at Maw, acted in 1594.


## p. 99 (#117) #############################################

Doubtful Plays
99
While a criticism of certain details in the main action of A
Woman Kilde with Kindnesse seems unnecessary here, it cannot
be ignored that, in this as in several other of his plays, Heywood
should have felt himself obliged to contrive a by-plot which,
instead of relieving tension, offends judgment. In the present
instance, though we would not willingly lose the hawking scene
out of which the subsidiary plot arises, we have to accept a
pedestrian version of the story of Measure for Measure, with a
solution such as might, possibly, have commended itself to the
author of Pamela'.
If Heywood wrote The Wise-woman Of Hogsdon, a comedy
which, though not printed, with his name, till 1638, cannot have
been produced at a date much later than 1604%, no more striking
instance is to be found of his versatility. It is true that this play
opens with a gambling scene as true to life as the hawking scene
in A Woman Kilde with Kindnesse, and that, later, it suddenly
changes its manner into that of domestic drama-of the comédie
larmoyante variety—so as to make the reckless young libertine
who is the hero of the action exclaim :
Here's such wetting of Handkerchers, hee weepes to thinke of his Wife,
shee weepes to see her Father cry. Peace foole, wee shall else bave thee
claime kindred of the Woman Kill'd with Kindnesse.
But Heywood is hardly likely to have introduced this half sarcastic
allusion into a play of his own, and the general character of this
comedy of manners is such as to make his authorship doubtful,
notwithstanding the mention in it, noted above, of his Cambridge
college. The Wise-woman Of Hogsdon is, at the same time, a
play full of life and spirit, with a plot very well managed in spite
of its complications, between the two Luces and a third young
lady and the gay Young Chartley who flutters round the trio,
depending on the services of the evil old intermediary, the avowed
rival of Mother Bombie, Mother Phillips of Bankside, and half
a dozen other wise women and procuresses.
Much fuller of
humorously grotesque characters than any known play of Hey-
wood's, this play, at the same time, exaggerates all the blemishes
which elsewhere he shows no similar eagerness to parade—a pro-
fusion of doggerel, of bad puns and equivoques and of unequivocal
obscenity.
The case is different with The Fayre Mayde of the Exchange.
1 As to Heywood's indebtedness to the queen of Navarre and Bandello for the
double plot of this play, see Creizenach, vol. 19, part 1, p. 264.
• See Fleay, vol. 1, p. 291,
7-2


## p. 100 (#118) ############################################

Іоо
Thomas Heywood
With The pleasaunt Humours of the Cripple of Fanchurch,
which, though printed anonymously in 1607 and later, has been
usually attributed to Heywood, and upon which, treating it as his,
Charles Lamb bestowed high praise. The present writer, without
accepting Fleay's conjecture that the play was written by Machin,
cannot persuade himself that Heywood was its author. Though
the comedy offers a very lively picture of the Royal Exchange
(from a shop front point of view), there is little else to convey
the sense of freshness and originality which few of Heywood's
dramatic productions fail, in some respect, to leave upon the
reader. The heroine Phillis fails to charm, and her repartees
exhibit her as a very secondrate Beatrice, while her passion for
the 'noble’ Cripple, who is magnanimous enough to reject it, is
not so much unpleasing as unconvincing. Apart from the Cripple's
loyalty to the city and the virtue of its shopwomen (a touch of
characteristic directness) there is little to suggest Heywood; the
wittiness of some of the passages of the play, and the cleverly
symmetrical construction of its plot', are merits not common in
his dramas.
In The Royall King, and The Loyall Subject, which, though not
printed till 1637, was, undoubtedly, of a relatively early date', we
have an indisputable piece of Heywood's workmanship. His muse
took a lofty flight on this occasion, seeking renown in romantic
drama. Like Fletcher's similarly named play, from which it
altogether differs in treatment, Heywood's is founded on a novel by
Bandello3; but the dramatist is clearly anxious that his localisation
of the story in England should be express and explicit ; so that it
is difficult—though useless—not to speculate on the possibility of
some personal application being intended. Yet the story of the
play is wildly improbable, and before the long-suffering fidelity of
the Marshal and his family even Patient Grissel's pales ; in short,
an impression of artificiality mars the total effect. Moreover, the
action, as it were, begins over again, after it had seemed to have
reached its height. In a word, though the diction, in the case of
1 In the actual close of the play, which leaves the arrest of Phillis's father for
felony without explanation or sequence, there must have been something wrong in
the stenography.
2 See the references to versification and costume in the epilogue. Fleay (vol. 1, p. 300)
insists that this play was an altered version of Marshal Osric, by Heywood and Went-
worth Smith (performed by Worcester's men in 1602), brought out, in consequence
of the success of Fletcher's Loyal Subject, soon after that play, probably at Christmas
1633.
3 Cf. Koeppel, E. , Quellenstudien zu den Dramen Ben Jonsons (1895), appendix,
pp. 133-5.


## p. 101 (#119) ############################################

The Fair Maid Of The West
IOI
a
the principal plot, maintains a level unusual with Heywood, the
conception is superior to its execution, and the by-plot, which
essays to illustrate the commonplace saying that clothes make the
man, is, as not unfrequently with Heywood, extravagant and in part
offensive. This play, which, very possibly, was earlier than A Woman
Kilde with Kindnesse, cannot claim to be ranked beside it.
The Rape of Lucrece, printed in 1609, but first produced
soon after the accession of James I', is, again, in a different style, if
style of any sort can be ascribed to this odd medley of tragedy and
vaudeville. As to the serious action, all that need be said is that
the dramatist has contrived to provoke a strange thrill of mixed
pity and terror by the picture of the house of Collatinus when the
morning dawns on Tarquin's crime. It is here that he introduces
the one exquisite lyric known to have come from his pen. The
other songs—a budget of what at the present day would be called
music hall ditties interspersed in the action of this 'true Roman
tragedy' by Valerius, 'the merry Lord among the Roman peers'-
are, in part, of antiquarian interest (such as the list of London
taverns, and that of the street cries of Rome); they reach the nadir
of shameless inappropriateness in the catch with which the merry
lord, Horatius Cocles and the clown 'follow on,' when the tragic
action is suspended at its height.
In The Fair Maid Of The West, printed in 1631, which is
undoubtedly and unmistakably Heywood's, we have another
romantic comedy, but one in which the patriotic note sounds
clearly and the salt breeze of the sea blows to and from our island
shores. Part I of this dramatic Odyssey (which must have been
founded on some popular tale unknown to us) begins with a
delightfully vivid picture of English seaport life, localised at
Plymouth and dated by a dumb-show as at the time of the ex-
pedition of Essex to the Azores. On the Hoe, the gallant Spencer
parts from the lovely Besse Bridges, the pride of the Castle inn-
he to sail for 'Fiall,' she to keep her faith and fortune for him at
Foy. Soon afterwards, we are transported into the land of eastern
romance, and, after divers marvellous adventures-all redounding
to the honour and glory of Elizabethan England and her sailors-
we leave the lovers reunited as the honoured guests of king
Mullisheg of Fesse. Part II completes the story in three stirring
acts, brimful of lust, courage, sensitive honour and royal magna-
nimity, enough in their combination to furnish forth an entire
i See Fleay, vol. I, p. 292.
'Packe cloudes away, and welcome day,' eto.


## p. 102 (#120) ############################################

102
Thomas Heywood
6
drama. But, as in The Royall King, the author cannot leave well
alone, and, in acts iv-v, adds a further series of adventures in
Italy, beginning with a shipwreck, which must have gone near to
surfeit even an Elizabethan audience. But the English 'spirit and
fire 1,' and kindly clowning of Clem, Besse's faithful ‘drawer'
and constant follower in east and west, hold out to the end.
The English Traveller, printed in 1633, was probably acted in
or about 1627 ; but the evidence on the subject is slight. The
story of Geraldine is told by Heywood in his History of Women?
as having 'lately happened within' his 'own knowledge’; but the
attempts which have been made to identify the hero remain
mere conjectures : The main plot with which the young
traveller is concerned turns on the idea which lies at the root of
Heywood's finest dramatic designs—that, if to err is human, to
forgive is what raises humanity beyond the earth. There is genius
in the twofold capacity for thinking nobly and beyond the range
of common minds, and for bringing home such thoughts to their
comprehension and sympathy. The by-plot of this drama is
derived from Plautus.
A few words will suffice as to the remaining extant plays of
which Heywood was sole author. Among these, The Captives, or
The Lost Recovered, which was not known to exist in print till
1883, when Mr Bullen found a copy of it in the British Museum, is,
by external evidence as well as by that of style and manner,
proved to be that entered as ‘by Hayward' in Sir Henry Herbert's
office book under the date 1634. This romantic comedy exhibits
the writer's patriotic spirit, as well as his love of the sea and its
ways. The main story is taken from the Rudens of Plautus,
several passages in which are translated in the play, but it seems
to have reached the author through the Italian hand of Masuccio
Salernitano. The underplot, which is derived from an old French
fabliau, translated into an English jest-book and retold by
1
These bold Englishmen
I think are all compos'd of spirit and fire,
The element of earth hath no part in them.
Part 11, act iv, ad fin,
2 Book iv, A Moderne History of an Adulteresse.
3 See Fleay's endeavour (vol. I, p. 297) to find the original of the young Levantine
traveller in George Sandys; and cf. the suggestion hazarded by Bang (Materialien,
etc. , vol. II, p. 376) that Young Geraldine was meant for Sir Peter Pindar, whom in
a distich (ibid. p. 266) Heywood couples with St Paul— both travel'd. '
• The Mostellaria. This part of the play introduces the celebrated fancy of
Naupagium joculare, to which Heywood recurs in less elaborate fashion in The Captives,
and which comes from the Deipnosophia of Athenaeus.


## p. 103 (#121) ############################################

Loves Maistresse
103
Heywood in his History of Women", recalls the scenes with the
friars in The Jew of Malta, a play which Heywood worked up for
representation before he published it in 1632, possibly himself
introducing into it these very scenes? . Another romantic drama,
A Mayden-Head well lost (printed in 1634, but acted some time
earlier-it contains dumb-shows, but little rime) has little or
nothing in it to redeem the offensiveness of its plot, one of the
numerous versions of the story of All's Well that Ends Well, relieved
by drollery very inferior to that of Parolles. A Challenge for
Beautie (printed in 1636, and probably produced on the stage only
a year or two earlier) is, in some respects, more characteristic of
Heywood, and is, in truth, written throughout in a vein of the most
blatant national self-consciousness. The main argument of the
piece, the pride of the Spanish-born queen who arrogantly sends
forth one of her courtiers to find her superior if he can of
course he finds her in England-resembles an Arabian night's
tale, but the loss of the fair Hellena's ring in a washhand-basin
is a trivial expedient. The by-plot of Ferars and Valladolid's
rivalry, which ends in the discovery that the lady adored by
both is the sister of the Englishman, is extremely theatrical but
not the least satisfactory. Finally, the latest of Heywood's plays
in date of production is, probably, Loves Maistresse: Or, The
Queens Masque, performed in 1633, and again in the following year
at Denmark house on the king's birthday, and printed in 1636.
This dramatic entertainment, into which Fleay has read the signs
of a theatrical quarrel between Apuleius (Heywood) and Midas
(Christopher Beeston), cannot have given much pleasure even to
the instructed except in some pretty passages“, especially in the
earlier scenes dealing with the story of Cupid and Psyche; to
the uninstructed, it must have seemed a shapeless jumble of
mythological learning. Heywood lacked the lyrical gift needed
to animate an effort of this nature; and Midas, who repeatedly
declines to see out the play, may be pardoned for finding con-
solation in the dances.
Thus, passing by Heywood's seven pageants (1631—9), to the
1 Cl. Book v, The Faire ladie of Norwich.
? Cf. Kittredge, G. L. , in The Journal of Germanic Philology, vol. 11, p. 13.
3. Of all the Christians this arme e'er stay'd,' says the Turkish captain, you come
the neerest men? What country? ' 'England,' replies Ferars, as if he could have
been mistaken for a • Diego' or a mounseer.
The fine lines
Oh griefe, that silver haires should crowne his head
By whom the Muses are dishonourëd
are, probably, a reminiscence of Spenser.


## p. 104 (#122) ############################################

104
Thomas Heywood
2
civic enthusiasm of which reference has already been made, we
come, in conclusion, to two plays in which he collaborated with
other writers. Of these, Fortune by Land and Sea was not
printed till 1655, as the joint production of Thomas Heywood
and William Rowley (both of whose names were mis-spelt on the
title-page); but it belongs to a far earlier date_possibly 1607—9,
when both dramatists were included in queen Anne's company?
The strong hand of William Rowley may be discernible in this
piece, which has a firmer texture than is usual with his fellow
playwright, and it may or may not) have been that hand
which gave dramatic form to the adventures and sentiments
of the pirates Clinton and Walton (the purser), apparently long-
lived favourites of the public—for pirates and patriots were not
so very far apart in that spacious age. In substance, however,
it is a domestic drama in Heywood's most characteristic manner,
while it bears witness once more to his love of the sea. The
admirable opening-a tavern brawl, the bloody ending of which
forms the starting point of the action resembles that of Heywood's
masterpiece; the troubles of Old Forrest are treated with gentle
pathos ; and the very humours of the clown are tinged with the
kindliness which can relieve even tomfoolery,
The late Lancashire Witches was printed in 1634 as the joint
work of Thomas Heywood and Richard Brome. But the story of
the play was based, in part, upon an account, published by T. Potts
in 1613, of the doings of certain Lancashire women, of whom twelve
had suffered death as witches in the previous year, and it is
possible that Heywood was the author of a play much earlier than
that put on the stage in 1634. In this year, another discovery' of
witches had attracted public attention, and the principal witness
in this case (who appears in the play as the boy) had been brought
up to London.
This ingenuous creature afterwards confessed that
his evidence before the Lancashire magistrates had been suborned,
and the accused, unlike their unfortunate predecessors in 1612,
were pardoned. But the authors of The late Lancashire Witches
cannot be acquitted on the charge that they had, pendente lite,
done their utmost to intensify public feeling against 'witches'-
whether or not their play was furbished up from an earlier piece
1 Cf. Fleay, vol. 1, p. 294; where see, also, as to the verse account of the two pirates,
first entered in the Stationers' register in 1586. The form of the play, in which there is
a great deal of rime, favours the assumption of an early date.
? Barron Field, in his edition of the play, rightly points out that the degradation of
the disinherited eldest son and his wife to the position of farm labourers may not
have seemed unnatural to an Elizabethan audience.


## p. 105 (#123) ############################################

!
13
E
This
His Qualities as a Dramatist
105
written by one of them! This makes it difficult to peruse with
patience the reproduction in this drama of the superstitious fictions
which did twelve unhappy women to death-the 'ridings' through
the air and the unholy assemblies, together with the mischievous
interference at a wedding feast and other rites. Yet, in this
farrago of half realistic nonsense, it is possible to discern the
elements of effective domestic drama, and the touching scene in
which Master Generous seeks to redeem his misguided wife from
her evil practices breathes a spirit akin to that which animates
some of the finest passages in Heywood's dramatic work.
The above, necessarily compendious, review of the extant
writings of this dramatist may have gone some way to make good
the conclusion that the flexibility of his talent as well as his
indefatigable industry enabled him to hold his own in dramatic
species so diverse as the chronicle history, the romantic drama
and the comedy of manners. In addition, he achieved at least one
masterpiece in domestic drama—a species in which his sincerity
and directness, together with a pathetic power springing from a
manly, candid and generous nature, found their most congenial
expression; while several other of his plays may, at least in part,
be regarded as having contributed to this artistic growth. While
he possessed the gift of genuine pathos, he was incapable of
lending words to passion; his satiric gift was small, and he rarely
sought to exercise it, his wit and humour moving more or less
within conventional bounds, though his clowns are by no means
invariably tedious. He was not strong in the art of construction,
and the total effect of several of his plays suffers from the by-plots
with which he thought it incumbent on him to eke out their
main action; but he was singularly skilful both in devising
most effective dramatic situations, and in providing for his plays
a background-usually disclosed in an excellent opening—which
gave to them individuality and variety. He was devoid of any
lyric vein, though the popular sympathies by which he was stirred
might have seemed likely to move him to song—for patriotism,
both national and civic, was second nature to him. Few features
are more striking in him than the love of learning which he
had brought with him from Cambridge and which he nourished by
lifelong application. But from drying up into a pedant he was
-
13
See the present writer's account of the play in English Dramatic Literature, vol. 11,
p. 575; and cf. the late James Crossley's Introduction to Potts's Discoverie of Witches,
etc. (Chetham Society's Publications, vol. vi, 1845), where will be found much learning
on the subject.


## p. 106 (#124) ############################################

106
Thomas Heywood
preserved by the manysidedness of his intellectual interests, and
by the freshness of spirit that was in him.
A ‘prose Shakespeare' Heywood deserves to be called only
in so far as he, too, could, on occasion, probe the depths of
human nature, touching with the wand of poetic imagination what
seemed to him of interest in the homely figures and everyday
experiences of contemporary life. When he imitated Shakespeare,
as in passages of his plays he did more or less unconsciously? ,
this was only in the way of business. He was not the man to
dream of donning the armour of Achilles, any more than to aspire
to an enduring fame—though of such as is his due meed he is
not likely to be deprived.
* One or two of these passages may be noted here:
A horse! a horse! (Part II of If you know not me, etc. )
What seek ye from the throne ?
That in which Kings
Resemble most the Gods: Justice. (A Challenge for Beautie, act v. )
And hand to hand in single opposition. (Fortune by Land and Sea, act 11. )


## p. 107 (#125) ############################################

CHAPTER V
BEAUMONT AND FLETCHER
The collection of plays with which the names of Beaumont
and Fletcher are traditionally associated constitutes the most
important body of dramatic work which was produced by the
successors of the Elizabethans, that is to say, by those dramatists
whose activity belonged wholly to the Stewart period. With this
new generation, a new fashion had come in. The genuinely
national interest in the drama which especially characterised the
last fifteen years of Elizabeth had, to a great extent, passed
away, and the taste of the court had become gradually more and
more the prevailing influence. This tendency had outwardly ex-
pressed itself, nearly at the beginning of the reign of James I, in
the fact that all the companies of actors in London then came to
be directly under the patronage of the royal family, while the pro-
duction of plays was, at the same time, subjected to the control
of the master of the revels; and, as the older generation of
dramatists disappeared, the new fashion showed itself more
and more in the character of the plays produced. Ben Jonson's
inductions are full of protests against the taste of the day in
drama, and especially against the growing tyranny in the matter
of criticism exercised by gallants who occupied seats on the
stage and assumed the right to damn a play at their pleasure;
but he found himself helpless to modify the prevailing fashions.
The court of James I had lost the chivalrous aspirations of the earlier
time, and the moral corruption which had been held in check, at
least to some extent, by noble ideals, had become alarmingly
prominent in the life of the upper classes of society. Shallowness
and frivolity characterised the manners of the court, even where
these were not tinged with gross vices, and a certain superficial
brilliancy had taken the place of more estimable qualities. Such
a society was naturally disinclined to serious reflection upon the


## p. 108 (#126) ############################################

108
Beaumont and Fletcher
issues of human life, and Shakespearean tragedy was both too
wide and too deep for its sympathies. It was, perhaps, a per-
ception of this change of conditions, rather than any marked
change in his own genius or temperament, that led Shakespeare
to abandon tragedy during the latest years of his connection with
the stage, and to entertain his public with dramatic romances.
However this may be, a definite preference was manifested, in the
period which was then beginning, for that hybrid form of drama
which became specially characteristic of the English stage-
tragicomedy; in which serious matters are dealt with, but a tragic
solution is avoided. Closely connected with this want of moral
earnestness was the demand for theatrical entertainments which did
not make any serious appeal to the intellect; and, hence, on the one
hand, the exaggerated love of pageantry, which was gratified by
the magnificence of the masques presented at court, and, on the
other, the growing preference, even of the better portion of the
audiences at the playhouses, for plots full of interesting events and
surprising turns of fortune, rather than such as were developed
naturally from situations and characters: the result being a
comparative neglect of character interest, and a disregard for
the principle of artistic unity.
But, apart from the general relaxation of moral and intellectual
fibre which was indicated in these tendencies, there were far more
serious evidences of moral decadence. The manners of society
had not yet sunk to the prosaic level of profligacy which cha-
racterised the period of the Restoration, and the feeling for poetry
and romance had not altogether departed; but the court standard
of morals with regard to the relations of men and women was
decidedly low, and false notions of loyalty and honour, to a great
extent, had established themselves in the higher classes of society.
In these respects, there is no reason to doubt that the drama of
the period reflected the prevailing fashions. Themes of love and
honour are those in which an artificial society of this kind is
chiefly interested, and it is these which it desires to see dealt with
upon the stage. The moral standard of the drama is apt to be the
same as that of the community for which it is composed; and
where false ideals of conduct in regard to chastity and honour
prevail in a society, we may reasonably expect to find them
reflected in the drama which is patronised by it.
The tastes of the society which had its centre in the court
of James I were, in fact, very faithfully provided for in the series
of dramas which have come down to us under the names of


## p. 109 (#127) ############################################

Contemporary Estimate
109
Beaumont and Fletcher; and that these should have been better
liked upon the stage than those of Shakespeare ought not to be
matter for surprise. In the former, poetry and romance were found
in combination with the code of manners and the standard of morals
which prevailed among gentlemen; the spectator was entertained
by a lively succession of events, contrived with consummate stage-
craft to produce the most interesting situations and the most
pleasurable surprises, and by a considerable variety of characters,
for the most part well sustained, though very deficient in depth
and truth to nature when compared with Shakespeare's; while,
at the same time, the language was a model of lucidity and purity,
altogether free both from tasteless conceits and from the obscurity
to which a style either highly figurative or overloaded with
thought is liable. Moreover, in the comedies, the audience was
interested and delighted by a new style of wit in conversation,
which was recognised as just that kind of brilliancy which every
courtier would wish to display, and beside which the old Eliza-
beth way' seemed clumsy and oldfashioned.
Shakespeare to thee was dull, whose best wit lies
the ladies' questions and the fools' replies,
Old-fashion'd wit, which walk'd from town to town
In trunk-hose, which our fathers call'd the clown.
So William Cartwright, a fellow poet and dramatist, addressed
Fletcher; and Dryden was only repeating a commonplace when
he said, comparing Beaumont and Fletcher with Shakespeare, that
'they understood and imitated the conversation of gentlemen much
better, whose wild debaucheries and quickness of wit in repartees
no poet can ever paint as they have done. ' The morality of their
plays, bad as it may seem to us in some cases, was by no means
looked upon as a just ground of complaint by their contemporaries.
On the contrary, the moral improvement to be gained from them
is one of the points insisted upon by their panegyrists:
Vices which were
Manners abroad, did pass corrected there;
They who possessed a box and half-crown spent
To learn obsceneness, returned innocent.
We find here, fully developed for the first time, a species of stage
entertainment which is rather an acted romance than a drama
in the strict sense of the word; without the intensity of tragedy,
but with more emotional interest and a more poetical style of
expression than is proper to comedy. The poetical comedy of
Shakespeare's middle period had been, to some extent, of this
d
D
1


## p. 110 (#128) ############################################

IIO
Beaumont and Fletcher
kind; and the species was exemplified further in the work of his
latest period, in Cymbeline, Pericles, The Tempest and The
Winter's Tale. Even by Shakespeare, the line between tragedy
and comedy, in some instances, is doubtfully drawn, and recon-
ciliations are huddled up when a tragic solution seems rather to
be required-as, for example, in Measure for Measure and in
Cymbeline; and still more is this the case with Beaumont and
Fletcher. The name 'tragicomedy' is applied usually to about a
third of the whole number of their plays, and is equally applicable
to a good many more, which are commonly called tragedies or
comedies. In fact, the great majority of the plays in this col-
lection are of the intermediate class to which the term 'dramatic
romance' is properly applicable, whether they have or have not
a tragic catastrophe; and it was this kind of drama that was
especially agreeable to the taste of the more aristocratic playgoer.
In dramas of this type we may say that variety of incident
was aimed at rather than unity of design, diffuseness took the
place of concentration, amorous passion became almost the only
dramatic motive and the conflict of emotions was of less importance
than the romantic interest of situation. The impression made upon
the mind of the reader of this large collection of plays is one of
astonishment at the richness and variety of dramatic invention
which they display; but it is seldom that he is able to commend
one of these dramas without very serious reserves, either moral
or artistic. The merit belongs usually to particular scenes in
a drama rather than to the drama as a whole; and, in cases where
there is no ground for criticising the conduct of the design, it is
often found that the plot deals with morbid or doubtful situations.
In spite, however, of these general characteristics, it is not the
case that the collection which passes under the names of Beaumont
and Fletcher is strictly homogeneous, and it is certain that some
of the differences which we observe between one portion of it
and another arise from diversity of authorship. An attempt,
therefore, must be made to distinguish the personalities of the
principal contributors.
Of Beaumont and Fletcher as individuals, we know little, ex-
cept what we can gather from their works. John Fletcher, the elder
of the two, born in 1579, was the son of a clergyman, Richard
Fletcher, then minister of Rye in Sussex, and afterwards succes-
sively dean of Peterborough, and bishop of Bristol, Worcester and
London. Thisícomely and courtly prelate,' who had the misfortune to
fall out of favour with queen Elizabeth because of a second marriage,


## p. 111 (#129) ############################################

1
Biography
III
died in 1596, leaving a large family very poorly provided for. The
poets Giles and Phineas Fletcher were sons of his younger brother,
first cousins of the dramatist. John Fletcher was educated at Benet
(Corpus Christi) college, Cambridge, and probably began rather
early to write for the stage. At what time his literary association
with Beaumont began must remain uncertain. Dryden tells us that
Philaster was the first play that brought them into esteem, 'for
before that they had written two or three very unsuccessfully. ' Each
may have written plays separately in this early period; but, when
their connection was formed, it was of a more intimate and permanent
character than any other of those partnerships which were frequent
in the history of the Jacobean drama--being based upon personal
friendship rather than upon any merely occasional purpose. They
lived together 'on the Bankside, not far from the Play-house,'
and are reported to have carried their friendship so far as to have
had all things in common. It is, perhaps, worthy of note that
there are several passages in Fletcher's later work which seem to
be reminiscences of such a friendship as this. After Beaumont
left off writing for the stage, Fletcher worked either by himself
or in conjunction with other dramatists, and particularly with
Massinger. He died, of the plague, in 1625, and was buried in
St Saviour's, his parish church. The testimony of Fletcher's
contemporaries is to the effect that he was very sparkling and
brilliant, as good as a comedy in himself, and that his attitude
towards the public was distinguished both by modesty and by
self-respect. Jonson loved him and 'was proud to call him son,'
distinguishing him as one of the few living writers 'besides him-
self' who could make a masque! His ceaseless activity in the
production of plays, and his readiness to cooperate with various
dramatists in supplying the needs of the stage, suggest the
idea that he was dependent for his livelihood upon the theatre;
but both he and Beaumont were gentlemen by position, and had
probably seen more of fashionable society than most of their
fellow dramatists.
Francis Beaumont was the youngest son of Sir Francis Beau-
mont of Grace-dieu in Leicestershire, one of the justices of the
common pleas, and brother of John Beaumont, author of
Bosworth Field. He was born probably in 1585, was educated
at Broadgates hall (afterwards Pembroke college), Oxford, and
1 There are no independent masques attributed to Fletcher, but several are to be
found in the plays to which he contribated, as The Maides Tragedy and The
False One.


## p. 112 (#130) ############################################

I I2
Beaumont and Fletcher
>
was entered as a member of the Inner Temple in the year 1600.
A long poem, after the model of Marlowe's Hero and Leander,
entitled Salmacis and Hermaphroditus, which was published
anonymously in 1602, was afterwards attributed to him; but the
evidences of authorship are by no means conclusive. He became
acquainted with Jonson very early, and wrote a copy of verses in
1605, 'To my dear friend Master Ben Jonson, upon his Fox'
(that is, the comedy Volpone), in which he declared that to Jonson
alone the English stage owed the rules of dramatic art. He paid
a similar compliment to two subsequent plays, The Silent Woman
and Catiline; and in all these pieces he expressed a contemptuous
opinion of public taste. On one occasion, while staying in the
country, he wrote to Jonson a poetical epistle, in which the doings
at the Mermaid are alluded to in the well known lines,
What things have we seen
Done at the Mermaid, etc.
and Jonson replied in verses which testify respect as well as
affection. A tradition reported by Dryden tells us that Beaumont
was
80 accurate a judge of plays, that Ben Jonson, while he lived, submitted
all his writings to his censure, and 'tis thought used his judgement in
correcting, if not contriving, all his plots.
In the freedom of his conversations with Drummond, Jonson let
fall the remark that "Francis Beaumont loved too much himself
and his own verses. ' Fletcher also, as we have seen, was on terms
of friendship with Jonson; and the two young dramatists may
have become acquainted with one another through him. We
shall see, however, that Beaumont produced at least one play,
The Woman Hater, independently of his future partner, and in
this the influence of Jonson is distinctly predominant. The verses
of Beaumont on the stage failure of Fletcher's Faithfull Shep-
heardesse, probably in 1609, again express much contempt of
popular judgment. On the marriage of the princess Elizabeth,
early in 1613, the inns of court prepared masques, to be presented
at Whitehall, and Beaumont supplied that which was provided by
the Inner Temple and Gray's inn. This masque is dedicated to
Sir Francis Bacon, solicitor general, as one who had 'spared no
time or travel in the setting forth, ordering and furnishing' of it.
Beaumont was himself married, apparently about two years before
his death, to Ursula, daughter of Henry Isley, of Sundridge in Kent;
and from this time his relations with Fletcher must have been less
intimate, and he may then have given up writing for the stage. He
>


## p. 113 (#131) ############################################

Individual Characteristics
113
died in March 1616, a few weeks before Shakespeare, and was
buried in Westminster abbey, in a place not far from the tombs
of Chaucer and Spenser. He wrote several occasional poems,
besides those already mentioned, including elegies on lady Mark-
ham, lady Penelope Clifton (a daughter of Sidney's Stella) and the
countess of Rutland (Sidney's daughter); but none of them rise above
mediocrity, and they are disfigured by examples of false taste, from
which the author's dramatic work is free. Among his intimates
was Drayton, who speaks of the two Beaumonts and of Browne as
his dear companions,
Such as have freely told to me their hearts,
As I have mine to them.
A certain amount of interest was taken by the succeeding gene-
ration in apportioning the qualities of genius displayed in the
Beaumont and Fletcher dramas between these two leading authors
of them. Some, it is true, adopted the convenient, but wholly
uncritical, notion, that Beaumont and Fletcher were so absolutely
alike, that it was a matter of indifference whether they were
regarded as one author or as two, there being a complete 'con-
simility of fancy' between them ; but, in general, we note the
acceptance of the conclusion which Pope has made familiar, naniely,
that Fletcher contributed the wit and Beaumont the judgment,
and that Beaumont's function was to check the overflowings of
Fletcher's genius. It was natural that, as Fletcher ruled the stage
for a long period after his partner's death, the chief positive
merit should be attributed to him by the generation for whose
tastes he had successfully catered, and that to Beaumont, whose
separate personality was little known, and whose genius, in fact,
was more nearly allied than that of his friend to the spirit of the
former age, should be assigned the negative function of criticism.
So far as the claim to superior judgment may be taken to imply
a more truly artistic conception of dramatic art, it is probable
that it should be admitted in favour of Beaumont; but the idea
that his work consisted chiefly of criticism must be rejected.
It is noticeable that, in the only copy of commendatory verse
which claims to date from the time of Beaumont's death, we hear
nothing of his critical activity, but of
those excellent things of thine,
Such strength, such sweetness couch'd in every line,
Such life of fancy, such high choice of brain.
Moreover, the writer of this, John Earle, does not think it necessary
even to mention the name of Fletcher, while attributing Philaster,
E. L. VI.
CH, V.
8


## p. 114 (#132) ############################################

114
Beaumont and Fletcher
The Maides Tragedy and A King and no King to Beaumont
alone. This, no doubt, is the result of a personal partiality; but
we must remember that the verses written later, for the folio of
1647, were, for the most part, equally affected by partiality in the
other direction, and, in general, these later compositions can only
be relied upon as evidence of the vague impressions prevailing in
the public mind in the age which succeeded the death of Fletcher.
The statements of publishers as to the individual or joint
authorship of particular plays are scanty and untrustworthy.
Four only were printed in Beaumont's lifetime-The Woman
Hater, The Faithfull Shepheardesse, The Knight of the Burning
Pestle and Cupid's Revenge—and, of these, two appeared anony-
mously, whiletwo, The Faithfull Shepheardesse and Cupid's Revenge,
were ascribed to Fletcher alone, the latter, no doubt, wrongly,
Five more were printed during the lifetime of Fletcher, The
Scornful Ladie, A King and no King, The Maides Tragedy,
Philaster and Thierry and Theodoret. Of these, The Scornful
Ladie, A King and no King and Philaster were ascribed to
Beaumont and Fletcher, the other two being anonymous; but
there is no probability that these publications were, in any instance,
made with Fletcher's authority, and the publisher of A King
and no King in 1619 was, apparently, unaware that one of the
authors to whom it was ascribed was dead. Most of the above-
mentioned dramas were reprinted, and a few more were added to
the list of published plays, before the death of Massinger, who,
as we shall see, contributed largely to the Beaumont and Fletcher
collection; and it has been argued that the mention of Beaumont
upon the title-page of any quarto published before 1639 proves,
at least, that the play was originally produced before Beaumont's
death. But it is evident that this kind of reasoning is very unsafe.
In 1647, five years after the closing of the theatres, Humphrey
Moseley, the bookseller, brought out a folio which professed to con-
tain all the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher that had not hitherto
been printed, with the exception of one, of which the copy had been
mislaid. Moseley declared that it had been his intention to print
Fletcher's works by themselves, but he had finally decided not to
separate him from Beaumont. It is probable that he could not
have done so if he had desired; but the publication of this folio
produced a protest in verse (which might much better have been
in prose) from Sir Aston Cockaine, against the general ascription
to Beaumont of plays in which, for the most part, he had no
share; and, since nearly all the dramas in the composition of which
a


## p. 115 (#133) ############################################

Individual Characteristics
115
Beaumont was concerned had already been printed and were,
consequently, excluded from this edition, it cannot be denied that
the complaint was well founded. He added that his old friend
Massinger had contributed to some of the newly printed plays,
but that, for the most part, they were 'sole issues of sweet
Fletcher's brain. ' The same complaint is contained in an epistle
to his cousin Charles Cotton, who, as being 'Fletcher's chief bosom
friend,' ought to have seen that justice was done to him by the
printers. The main importance that these protests have for us
consists in the incidental statement about Massinger, whose name
had not hitherto been publicly mentioned in connection with the
plays of Beaumont and Fletcher; and one of the most interesting
and trustworthy results of modern criticism has been to establish,
on metrical and other grounds, the extent to which this dramatist
collaborated with Fletcher. With regard to Beaumont, our con-
clusions are, in detail, more uncertain; and possibly, in some cases,
plays in which he had a share have been subsequently altered
or rewritten, so as partly to obliterate the traces of his hand.
A good deal of labour and ingenuity has been expended in the
endeavour to solve, by critical methods, the very intricate problems
of authorship which present themselves, and it has been found
possible to arrive at a tolerably clear idea of the main character-
istics of Beaumont's work as distinguished from that of his
partner? In certain particular cases, however, there remains
much uncertainty, and opinions of very various kinds have been
maintained with a confidence of assertion which is by no means
justified by the available evidence. When a critic, with no ex-
ternal evidence of authorship before him, concludes that a certain
play was originally written by Beaumont, afterwards revised by
Fletcher and finally re-written by Middleton, he is evidently
dealing in mere guesswork. On the other hand, these investi-
gations have, undoubtedly, been accompanied by a more accurate
and systematic study than had previously been made of the indi-
vidual marks of style by which the dramatists of the period are
distinguished, and have, doubtless, helped towards a clearer per-
ception of the true value of metrical tests, as well as of the
dangers of a too-mechanical application of them.
The general result of criticism seems to be as follows. It is
probable that, of the fifty-two plays which have commonly passed
* The progress made in recent times may be estimated partly by the remark of
Hallam in 1843, that no oritic has perceived any difference of style between the two
dramatists (Literature of Europe, vol. II, p. 98).
842


## p. 116 (#134) ############################################

116
Beaumont and Fletcher
>
a
under the joint names, at least one belongs to Beaumont alone, and
that in some eight or nine others he cooperated with Fletcher,
taking, usually, the leading part in the combination; that Fletcher
was the sole author of about fifteen plays, and that there are
some two-and-twenty, formerly attributed to the pair conjointly,
in which we find Fletcher's work combined with that of other
authors than Beaumont, besides five or six in which, apparently,
neither Fletcher nor Beaumont had any appreciable share. To
the general total may be added Henry VIII, by Shakespeare and
Fletcher, which is commonly regarded as Shakespeare's; A Very
Woman, which passes under the name of Massinger, but in which
Fletcher, probably, had a share; and Sir John van Olden Barna-
velt, by Fletcher and Massinger, which remained unprinted till
quite recently. Among the dramatists with whom Fletcher worked
after the retirement of Beaumont, by far the most important place
is taken by Massinger, who has a considerable share in at least
sixteen plays, and who in justice ought to have been mentioned
upon the title-page of the collection. There is evidence, also,
-
of the occasional cooperation of Fletcher with Jonson, Field,
Tourneur, W. Rowley and, perhaps, Daborne.
It is evident that any investigation which may be made of
the separate styles of Beaumont and Fletcher must, in the first
instance, be based upon those plays which may reasonably be attri-
buted to Fletcher alone, and these, in fact, will be found to supply
a tolerably satisfactory criterion. The metrical style of Fletcher
is more unmistakably marked than that of any other dramatist of
the period. Its most obvious characteristic is the use of redun-
dant syllables in all parts of the line, but especially at the end.
So much is this the practice with him that, out of every three of
his lines, usually two, at least, have double or triple endings, and
even this proportion is often far exceeded. No other writer has
anything like this number of feminine endings: in a play of
2500 lines, while Massinger, who approaches Fletcher most nearly
in this respect, might, possibly, have as many as 1200 double or
triple endings, and Shakespeare, in his latest period, as many as
850, Fletcher would normally have at least 1700, and might not
impossibly have as many as 2000; and his marked preference for
this form of verse is emphasised by the fact that very often the
feminine ending is produced by the addition of some quite
unnecessary word, such as 'sir,' 'lady,' 'too,' ‘now, introduced,
apparently, for this sole purpose. A characteristic feature, also,
of Fletcher's double endings, though not peculiar to him, is that


## p. 117 (#135) ############################################

Style of Fletcher
117
the redundant syllable is occasionally a word of some weight, which
cannot be slurred over, e. g.
As many plagues as the corrupted air breeds,
or
Welcome to the court, sweet beauties! Now the court shines.
The use of redundant syllables elsewhere than at the end of the line
is also very frequent, so that the number of syllables in Fletcher's
verse ranges, in comedy at least, from ten to fifteen or more.
These peculiarities of rhythm were deliberately adopted for
dramatic purposes. Fletcher was quite capable of writing blank
verse of the usual type, and in his pastoral drama, The Faithfull
Shepheardesse, we have nearly two hundred lines of blank verse
with not more than ten double endings, and with hardly any
superfluous syllables in other parts of the line. For his ordinary
dramatic work, however, he chose a form which, in his opinion,
was better suited for dramatic expression. The object aimed at
was to make the line more loose and flexible and to gain an effect
of ease and absence of premeditation. No mouthing is possible
in this verse, no rounding off of a description or sentiment with
a period; all is abrupt and almost spasmodic, apparently the out-
come of the moment. The quick and lively action of the later
English stage, with its easy assumption of the ordinary speech of
gentlemen, thus developed a metre which could supply the place of
prose in the lightest interchange of fashionable repartee.
With this freedom in the matter of syllabic measure, Fletcher
combines a singular absence of free movement from verse to verse.
His lines, for the most part, are ‘end-stopped,' that is to say, they
have usually a marked final pause, so that each verse tends to
become an independent unit of expression, and the running-on of
the sentence from line to line is comparatively rare. The free
distribution of pauses in the verse, which is naturally connected
with a periodic structure of sentence, is thus seriously restricted,
and the intention of excluding, so far as possible, the more rhetori-
cal form of expression, and of favouring the use of short sentences
of simple structure, is evident. This, no doubt, conduces to
clearness, and the effect of discontinuity, which is obtained by
coincidence of pause with the end of the loosely constructed line,
helps, perhaps, to suggest a spontaneous development of thoughts
from the circumstances of the moment. But these advantages
are dearly bought by the tiresome monotony which the system
involves, a monotony which is only, to some extent, relieved by
variation of the position of the internal pause and by the frequent


## p. 118 (#136) ############################################

118 Beaumont and Fletcher
use of the so-called 'lyric' caesura. It is by the combination of the
double ending with the stopped line that Fletcher’s verse is
chiefly distinguished from that of Massinger. Jonson's later verse
exhibits, to some extent, the same combination as Fletcher's, and
must, to some extent, have been influenced by it. The informal
character of Fletcher's verse structure enabled him to dispense
entirely with prose in his later work; but it must not be assumed
that he never used it at any period. He seems to have almost
always avoided rime in his ordinary dramatic verse; employing
it occasionally, however, at the end of a scene.
Fletcher's metrical style, generally, is intimately associated with
his endeavour to achieve a more lively and dramatic presentation of
thought. Shakespeare, in his later work, to a great extent dis-
carded the periodic structure of the sentence, and adopted what we
may call the disjointed style, as more dramatic; but his method
was altogether different from that of Fletcher. Instead of strength-
ening the end pause, he, to a great extent, abolished it, and
attained his object by methods which, in the hands of an inferior
writer, would have altogether disorganised the verse. Indeed, a
comparison of Fletcher with Shakespeare generally would tend
chiefly to emphasise the difference of their styles. Shakespeare's
unequalled rapidity of imagination makes him concise even to
obscurity, especially in his later work; he more and more abounds
in metaphor, finding no leisure to do more than indicate his com-
parisons; and this pregnant brevity carries with it extraordinary
force. Fletcher, on the other hand, notwithstanding the rapidity
of action in his dramas, is inclined to move slowly in the expres-
sion of thoughts and feelings. 'He lays line upon line, making up
one after the other, adding image to image so deliberately that
we see where they join. Shakespeare mingles everything, he runs
line into line, embarrasses sentences and metaphors; before one
idea has burst its shell, another is hatched and clamorous for
disclosure But this very quality of Fletcher's style, this
clear presentation of ideas and images in due succession, was
likely to make him the more popular of the two poets upon the
stage, and helps, in some measure, to account for the fact that, in
the latter part of the seventeenth century, two of ‘Beaumont and
Fletcher's' plays were acted for one of Shakespeare's or Jonson's.
In the plays which there is good reason to attribute partly or
entirely to Beaumont, characteristics of style appear that are quite
different from those which we have noticed in Fletcher's work.
1 Lamb, Specimens of the Dramatists.


## p. 119 (#137) ############################################

Style of Beaumont
119
We find here a type of verse which rather resembles that of
Shakespeare's middle period, with a small proportion of double
endings, few redundant syllables in other parts of the verse, no
marked tendency to pause at the end of the line, but a measured
eloquence, and a certain rounded fulness of rhythm, which lend
themselves well to poetical narrative and description. With this,
there are tolerably frequent instances of occasional rime at the end
of speeches and, also, elsewhere, and a free use of prose as the
language of ordinary conversation. In verse passages, instead of
a succession of short sentences, we notice a tendency, rather, to
complex structure, and to enlargement by repetition or parenthe-
sis, though without any failure in lucidity, and usually with a
faultless balance of clauses. Such sentence and verse structure as
we have in the following passage is quite alien to Fletcher's style :
It were a fitter hour for me to laugh,
When at the altar the religious priest
Were pacifying the offended powers
With sacrifice, than now. This should have been
My rite, and all your hands have been employ'd
In giving me a spotless offering
To young Amintor's bed, as we are now
For you. Pardon, Evadne; 'would my worth
Were great as yours, or that the king, or he,
Or both, thought so! perhaps he found me worthless :
But till he did so, in these ears of mine
These credulous ears, he pour'd the sweetest words
That art or love could framel,
In addition to the more external marks of style, we note in
these plays a feature which is hardly to be found in any of
Fletcher's admitted work, namely, the element of burlesque or
mock-heroic. The Woman Hater, which abounds in this form
of humour, is now generally assigned to Beaumont alone, and
The Knight of the Burning Pestle is admitted to be either
entirely, or almost entirely, his.
Apart from these, the dramas which, upon critical grounds, can,
with confidence, be attributed to the joint authorship of Beaumont
and Fletcher are the following: The Scornful Ladie, Philaster,
The Maides Tragedy, Â King and no King, Cupid 8 Revenge,
The Coxcombe and Four Plays in One. A few others, as Wit At
severall Weapons, The Nice Valour, Loves Cure and The Little
French Lawyer, have been assigned partly to Beaumont, not so
much on the evidence of style, as because it has been thought
that, in their original form, they date from a time when Beaumont
1 The Maides Tragedy, act 11, sc. 1.